SynthesisMedical sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Effectiveness of Different Types of Core Decompression in Early-Stage Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnosis and Treatment of Nontraumatic Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses for the ARCO Clinical Practice Guideline Development Workgroup.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOsteonecrosis of the femoral head is a progressive disorder leading to femoral head collapse and early disability, often affecting young adults. Core decompression (CD) is the most established hip-preserving treatment for early-stage disease, yet the comparative benefits of biological and structural augmentation remain uncertain.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis, registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251108396), evaluated 14 studies encompassing 1210 patients treated with CD alone or CD combined with biological (e.g., platelet-rich plasma, mesenchymal stem cells, bone marrow aspirate concentrate) or structural (e.g., bone grafting, fibular support) augmentation.
resultsPooled random-effects models demonstrated that biological augmentation yielded significant improvements in Harris Hip Score and pain reduction (VAS) up to 24 months, with early peaks and subsequent stabilization, whereas structural augmentation showed no functional advantage at any time point. Radiological progression and conversion to total hip arthroplasty were not significantly reduced, though long-term trends favored biologically augmented CD.
conclusionsOverall, biological augmentation provides durable functional and symptomatic benefits in early-stage osteonecrosis, supporting its use as a first-line adjunct to CD, while structural augmentation appears less consistent and warrants further evaluation through large, standardized trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.